No matter how much extra weight you have. YOU ARE NOT FAT.

TheOtherMike posted...

Try reading the op and applying that context to the sentence "you are not fat." I refuse to believe you or anyone else on a text-based message board are this illiterate.

TC says to tell people You are not fat.

Yes or No?

Daremo posted...

You've kind of gone around my point there.

What is the benefit in saying, "You are fat and unhealthy.", over "You have an excess of fat, and that's unhealthy."?

By the same token you've gone over my point. You said people can use a word that in itself is not pejorative, but a malicious actor can use said word to be pejorative. That literally applies to literally any sentence and any word you can think of. Literally. Including the 2 examples you gave. Both example sentences you gave can contextually be used maliciously, including the one you implied/think was nicer.

The point being, context is one of the key foundations of speech. Yet, some most definitely take it upon themselves to do everything in their power to ignore context to warp someones words/sentence to be malicious when contextually it was not.

It's not beneficial to go out of ones way to find a way to be offended or look for reasons for others to be offended while throwing context to the wind so we can look for new ways to be offended.

Because again, no one in this topic is suggesting to walk up to an individual and randomly call them fat or randomly tell them they're fat.

So to answer your question in lesser words, context matters. Neither examples you gave are inherently malicious or more beneficial to choose. Both can contextually be used maliciously.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

TC says to tell people You are not fat.

Yes or No?

Quote the op in its entirety and tell me what it means.

LightningThief posted...

By the same token you've gone over my point. You said people can use a word that in itself is not pejorative, but a malicious actor can use said word to be pejorative. That literally applies to literally any sentence and any word you can think of. Literally. Including the 2 examples you gave. Both example sentences you gave can contextually be used maliciously, including the one you implied/think was nicer.

The point being, context is one of the key foundations of speech. Yet, some most definitely take it upon themselves to do everything in their power to ignore context to warp someones words/sentence to be malicious when contextually it was not.

It's not beneficial to go out of ones way to find a way to be offended or look for reasons for others to be offended while throwing context to the wind so we can look for new ways to be offended.

Because again, no one in this topic is suggesting to walk up to an individual and randomly call them fat or randomly tell them they're fat.

So to answer your question in lesser words, context matters. Neither examples you gave are inherently malicious or more beneficial to choose. Both can contextually be used maliciously.

I think your premise here is flawed.

This isn't mainly in regards to walking randomly up to people and calling them fat, but about being mindful of the casual language used in everyday life. It doesn't work so simply as, "I said this with no intent to cause offense, therefore it does not cause offense, unless the other person deliberately misconstrues my words." The world would be a very different place if that was how it worked.

Neither is inherently malicious, but some people, for reasons ranging from depression, negative self esteem/self image, previous experience, other causes, will read a negative connotation into one, and less so the other.

This is not because they are 'looking to be offended', but simply because that's how their brains work; if something can be seen in a negative light, it will be. That is the context I'm operating in.

More over, this specific topic regards people who are more likely to have body issues. It would seem meet to exercise more care.

The proposed adjustment isn't about not making delicate little flowers not feel bad, or that excess weight isn't a problem, but in altering the lens through which people perceive the world. In much the way poor people using opiates purchased illegally off the street is called a 'crime wave', but rich people using opiates purchased illegally from a pill mill is a 'health crisis'.

Even if you don't see it that way, there are a lot of people who regard one as a moral failing and the other as an unfortunate circumstance.

Cjsdowg wants to move weight problems from the moral failing category to more of the unfortunate circumstance side by de-emphasizing the adjective form and embracing the noun form. By looking past the current state to what circumstances may have brought them to that state, and what might be keeping them there.

And I can't find a way to see that as a bad thing.

TheOtherMike posted...

Quote the op in its entirety and tell me what it means.

I dont care. People itt are specifically replying to his one statement.

TC said many things. Most people itt have issue with one specific comment.

So why bring up the other things nobody is addressing?

Like, you are being silly.

I think teachers should get paid more. They have long hours, and they cant get funding for what they need to effectively teach a class. They shouldnt have to deal with unruly kids either. They should be able to beat kids who don't behave. The schools should stand up for their teachers and they should have more freedom to reprimand bad apples. Otherwise, we dont give teachers enough tools to teach kids.

I dont give a shit about the overall message. The above example just slipped in an extremely disagreeable statement. Just because I disagree with one part does not mean Im addressing everything.

TC advocates lying by saying someone fat is not fat. Thats all posters are addressing. Period.

im glad you got in better shape, TC.

perhaps encourage high calorie people to walk more, eat cleaner, etc.

telling them they arent fat when theyre 54 pushing 300lbs isnt helping.

cjsdowg posted...

I know that I have a health topic for those interested in weight loss, and I welcome anyone who wishes to join. However, I feel its important to share a message for anyone who might need to hear it, and everyone on the board. Whether youre 50, 100, or 300 pounds overweight, please remember: You have fat. Fat does not define you; it is not your personality, nor is it an intrinsic part of who you are. Its simply something that you carry with you. If fat were truly a part of your identity, it would imply it is permanent, but thats not the case. You can shed fat, but you cant lose what truly makes you, you. And for those trying to lose keep going. Remember the only easy day was yesterday. But the goal is worth it.

TC posts this and he wouldnt get nearly the same amount of pushback.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

So why bring up the other things nobody is addressing?

Because what you think it said is not what it said. You're insisting on one meaning, which was clarified in the op to not be that one meaning.

If TC had said you can watch videos on the net, and you said how can you watch videos on a bunch of ropes used to catch fish, who would be in the wrong?

Daremo posted...

Because what you think it said is not what it said. You're insisting on one meaning, which was clarified in the op to not be that one meaning.

Bro, what?

cjsdowg posted...

Whether youre 50, 100, or 300 pounds overweight , please remember: You are not fat. You have fat.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

I dont care. People itt are specifically replying to his one statement.

Yes, people are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context. For example, the specific quote of mine that you replied to was about Hypno repeatedly claiming that cjs is "lying to people about their problems," which is explicitly false because the problem is being acknowledged.

But I know you don't care. Clearly you don't, because you refuse to acknowledge the entirety of the op and its context.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

TC posts this and he wouldnt get nearly the same amount of pushback.

Yeah people are getting WAY too hung up on the you are not fat part. Take that out and hes saying the same fucking thing lol

cuttin_in_farm posted... Bro, what?

Well? Are you a yellow mass of triglycerides? You're not, are you? You're a person with muscle, blood, skin, bones, and also some amount of fat.

What part of this are you not getting?

You're hung up on the adjective form when he was using the noun.

TheOtherMike posted...

Yes, people are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context. For example, the specific quote of mine that you replied to was about Hypno repeatedly claiming that cjs is "lying to people about their problems," which is explicitly false because the problem is being acknowledged.

Bro, real talk. Mod me.

Are you a fucking moron?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Bro, real talk. Mod me.

Are you a fucking moron?

You don't have a valid argument, I won't let you get away with pretending context doesn't exist, so all you can do is fling shit. I guess I was wrong and you really are that illiterate.

TheOtherMike posted...

You don't have a valid argument, I won't let you get away with pretending context doesn't exist, so all you can do is fling shit. I guess I was wrong and you really are that illiterate.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/eb73eaf1.jpg

Daremo posted...

I think your premise here is flawed

The people who don't agree with you would say your premise is flawed for all the reason already described.

Daremo posted...

Neither is inherently malicious, but some people, for reasons ranging from depression, negative self esteem/self image, previous experience, other causes, will read a negative connotation into one, and less so the other.

Like I said, that applies to both of your examples.

Daremo posted...

This is not because they are 'looking to be offended', but simply because that's how their brains work; if something can be seen in a negative light, it will be. That is the context I'm operating in.

Yes it is. When you ignore context to find offense, you are looking for a reason to be offended. It only becomes a question is context being ignored intentionally or unintentionally.

Also no, that is no by default how the brain works as not everyone goes around doing what you described by doubling down.

It's one thing to misunderstand the context of someones words, it's another when someone is made aware the context was misunderstood, they double down to still be offended.

2 types of people who do the above are:
- malicious types who want to stir up controversy. These types find joy in causing discourse and prey on the delicate little flowers to get offended.
- The ones that are delicate little flowers. These types find every way possible to find a victim. They aren't malicious in nature, but definitely are quick to warp your words to be an attack and will even double down on it.

Both types throw context to the wind. But it is not how everyone's brain works like you claim.

Daremo posted...

The proposed adjustment isn't about not making delicate little flowers not feel bad

It most definitely is.

You are advocating for individuals to intentionally ignore context of a conversation because someone "might" warp someones words to be malicious. "So we should be mindful that some bad faith actors will manipulate those words to be malicious."

What you are saying literally, not metaphorically, but literally applies to all words, sentences..... speach. Hence why context is always key in a conversation. When you ignore context, ofc it can be perceived however you want to warp it to.

You can manipulate speech to be whatever your imagination wants it to be when you ignore context.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/eb73eaf1.jpg

Careful you don't get banned from CE altogether lol resorting to personal insults is a crutch btw.

LoveLikeJazz posted...

Careful you don't get banned from CE altogether lol resorting to personal insults is a crutch btw.

Nah, its just gamefaq. I dont really care that much.

Just tried to get him modded back. But the poor soul blocked me lmao.

cjsdowg posted...

Did you go this hard when we stop using the R word.

People still use that word and I was talking about definitions only.

What about bald? Do you go around telling people "You are not bald, you just no longer have the amount of hair you used to".

For better or worse, fat/overweight/husky/etc are descriptors. Should they define who a person is? No. But to flat out tell people they aren't fat when they clearly are doesn't help anyone.

bigblu89 posted...

What about bald? Do you go around telling people "You are not bald, you just no longer have the amount of hair you used to".

For better or worse, fat/overweight/husky/etc are descriptors. Should they define who a person is? No. But to flat out tell people they aren't fat when they clearly are doesn't help anyone.

I have shown proof that yes how we address these issues do help. Also you care about helping people lose weight?

Im not fat, Im obese.

cjsdowg posted...

I have shown proof that yes how we address these issues do help. Also you care about helping people lose weight?

This is going back 15 years now, but when my son was born, I was 305 pounds. I eventually got all the way down to 215 before ultimately settling in the 220-230 range depending on if its summer or winter (as Im much more active in the summer).

Do I help people lose weight? Not directly. But when people ask how I lost the weight that I did Ill tell them my method.

Someone being overweight is just as much of a physical descriptor as wearing glasses or having red hair. Does it need to be used as an insult? Of course not, but I dont think this is what the conversation is about.

This topic is getting thick.

LoveLikeJazz posted...

I'm making assumptions here but this is much easier to say if you've never been overweight, or if you are overweight and have no interest in losing it for whatever reason.

It's like, I've never smoked or drank a day in my life but I always catch myself thinking "why can't you literally just quit cold turkey?" before I realize "right... it's not that easy for everybody." It's a crutch for sure, just like food can be. Some people eat to live, others live to eat. Eating is emotional. Take that away from someone who feels it's the only thing they have to look forward to, and you've made that person so depressed they're bound to fail.

Not to go on a tangent, but honestly most people think they have to deprive themselves by going on a restrictive diet. They often don't realize they can (and should) eat quite a lot, as long as they eat nutritious foods and generally stay away from sugary, fried, processed foods. It's all so much simpler than it's made out to be, and the same can be said about exercise. How much to do, what do to, and why. But doing the initial homework is frustrating for people because of all the different advice out there. Everybody saying "this doesn't work, do this", pulling people trying to find the answer in all different directions, instead of "this doesn't work for me because ______ , try this instead". People need to identify with someone who has figured it out so that they can figure it out themselves.

Same can be said about tough love vs. coddling when it comes to calling someone fat or simply overweight.

You did make assumptions, I am overweight. I've lost 60 pounds in the past 2 years. I've been dieting and exercising since my engagement and marriage.

Nobody did me any favors by not addressing that being overweight causes health problems. It's better to call a spade a spade, and then deal with it. Again, if you want.

bigblu89 posted...

What about bald? Do you go around telling people "You are not bald, you just no longer have the amount of hair you used to".

For better or worse, fat/overweight/husky/etc are descriptors. Should they define who a person is? No. But to flat out tell people they aren't fat when they clearly are doesn't help anyone.

Real

pretzelcoatl posted...

You did make assumptions, I am overweight. I've lost 60 pounds in the past 2 years. I've been dieting and exercising since my engagement and marriage. I've simply stopped doing the things that make you fat, and then I started to lose weight. It wasn't magic, miserable, or impossible.

Nobody did me any favors by not addressing that being overweight causes health problems. It's better to call a spade a spade, and then deal with it. Again, if you want.

Look at the language you used in your own. You are using person first language, beyond that No one has suggested carrying extra weight is not harmful.

Obviously this is just word game shit. If I'm skinny, I'm not lacking in fat or whatever. If I'm short, I'm not lacking height. People are tall, short, skinny, fat, bald, hairy etc... If you think changing the language from a person being fat to a person having fat is going to change how being fat is perceived, you're kidding yourself.

Also I would guess that the fat acceptance movement would reject your language update, as it suggests not being fat is normal, and that there's something wrong with being fat, when being fat is what gives you value.

Edit: But they would also reject any idea about losing weight being a positive thing, too.

shnangyboos posted...

Obviously this is just word game shit. If I'm skinny, I'm not lacking in fat or whatever. If I'm short, I'm not lacking height. People are tall, short, skinny, fat, bald, hairy etc... If you think changing the language from a person being fat to a person having fat is going to change how being fat is perceived, you're kidding yourself.

Also I would guess that the fat acceptance movement would reject your language update, as it suggests not being fat is normal, and that there's something wrong with being fat, when being fat is what gives you value.

I have proven with studies that what I stayed is not "shit". And this has nothing to do with fat acceptance.

16-BITTER posted...

"I'm not fat, i'm big-boned!", the topic.

It is not the word "fat" that brings a stigma to obese people, it is obesity that attaches a stigma to the word "fat".

Even if you somehow collectively agree to get society to stop using the word, the stigma will just carry over to the new word or phrase.

I'm big boned is suggesting that there isn't an issue. Cartman says that to avoid talking about his issues with weight and blame his bone structure. Also that still not using person first
language.

Saying some is carrying more weight still highlights there is an issue. But the person isn't the issue. They are just dealing with it.

Thank TC for those words you have written.

I guess you could theoretically be more wrong, but only in theory. Good thing this isn't Twitter else you'd have to reconsider your thinking.

I appreciate your kind sentiment and intentions, but an adjective is A descriptor, not THE descriptor. If someone is 7', they are tall; it doesn't mean they are tall and nothing else.

I understand that being fat has more negative connotations in society, but I don't believe that spinning the truth is the move to make. I'd rather shame fat-shaming. It's healthier to not be overweight, but in most cases that's nobody else's business to point out and be a dick over.